There's something the U.S. government doesn't want you to know. And it's come out again in the new Heritage Foundation report on education. It conveys that the general public is increasingly dissatisfied with public schools, with a rising number opting for private education.

The report explains that during the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions, 44 states introduced school-choice legislation. And in 2008, choices for private school were enacted into law or expanded in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Today 14 states and the District of Columbia offer voucher or education tax-credit programs that aid parents with sending their children to private schools. But that may be short-lived.

Despite the growing public preference for private education, Congress recently canceled the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which was created in 2004 to offer students from low-income families in the nation's capital an opportunity to join the voucher educational community. The law provided $14 million in scholarships to help pay for tuition at private schools of their choosing. But no longer.

Why did Congress nix the program, especially when recent studies showed that students receiving vouchers since the program's inception were academically 18.9 months ahead of their peers? (I read the other day that 100 percent of Thurgood Marshall Academy's charter graduates are accepted to colleges.) And why would Congress phase out a program that costs $7,500 per student annually, compared with the $15,000 it costs in Washington's public schools to educate a child?

So its cancellation is not a result of costing too much, because it's half the price of public schooling. And it's not because of inferior quality, because the kids enrolled in the program were scoring higher than students in regular schools. There's only one reason Congress canceled it, and it comes down to this: federal control and educational indoctrination.

Of course, government officials won't admit to a blatant usurpation of our rights, but they will say their educational reform is seeking to help your children. They will say it is necessary to establish common educational standards. They will say that we need to leave education to the experts and not to parents. And I fear that too many of us simply will give in to the whims of the nanny state.

As I wrote in my new best-selling book, "Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America": "The reason that government is cracking down on private instruction has more to do with suppressing alternative education than assuring educational standards. The rationale is quite simple, though rarely if ever stated: control future generations and you control the future. So rather than letting parents be the primary educators of their children -- either directly or by educating their children in the private schools of their choice -- (government) want(s) to deny parental rights, establish an educational monopoly run by the state, and limit private education options. It is so simple any socialist can understand it. As Joseph Stalin once stated, 'Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.'" (Get a free chapter of my book at here.)

What's amazing, too, is how hypocritical it is for Congress to make this decision. The Heritage Foundation's report also conveys that 44 percent of current United States senators and 36 percent of current members of the U.S. House of Representatives have "at one time sent their children to private schools." While the foundation found that 11 percent of American students attend private schools, 20 percent of the members of the 111th Congress attended private high schools. And they want to remove the voucher option for private school education?

While the members of President Barack Obama's administration profess to have education as a top priority, they did nothing in March when Congress chose to discontinue the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Why? Because they all are in cahoots to not only choose our medical care for us, own the mortgage insurance and finance businesses, and place caps on corporate earnings but also control our educational choices for our children.

snip.......

Is it merely coincidental that the private choice of home schooling was outlawed by the Soviet state in 1919, by Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1938, and by Communist China in 1949?

Is America next?

linda22003

04-28-2009, 12:26 PM

"What's amazing, too, is how hypocritical it is for Congress to make this decision. The Heritage Foundation's report also conveys that 44 percent of current United States senators and 36 percent of current members of the U.S. House of Representatives have "at one time sent their children to private schools." While the foundation found that 11 percent of American students attend private schools, 20 percent of the members of the 111th Congress attended private high schools. And they want to remove the voucher option for private school education?"

And they likely pay for those prep schools, as my parents did, out of their own pockets. Not from vouchers paid for by taxpayers. I simply don't understand why THIS form of welfare is fine with conservatives, except that it is a slap to public schools, and that's enough reason. :rolleyes:

Water Closet

04-28-2009, 12:42 PM

"What's amazing, too, is how hypocritical it is for Congress to make this decision. The Heritage Foundation's report also conveys that 44 percent of current United States senators and 36 percent of current members of the U.S. House of Representatives have "at one time sent their children to private schools." While the foundation found that 11 percent of American students attend private schools, 20 percent of the members of the 111th Congress attended private high schools. And they want to remove the voucher option for private school education?"

And they likely pay for those prep schools, as my parents did, out of their own pockets. Not from vouchers paid for by taxpayers. I simply don't understand why THIS form of welfare is fine with conservatives, except that it is a slap to public schools, and that's enough reason. :rolleyes:

I think the conservative answer would be that they are effectively being taxed twice (by choice, of course) -- first in local school taxes and second in private school fees -- and, therefore, the voucher represents a type of rebate for a service not used. The argument falls down in two places. First, it's a choice, not a requirement, to send children to private schools and conservatives are normally not particularly tolerant of ameliorating the effects of a choice. Second, where's the rebate for those of us who don't have (nor ever had) any screaming br...uh, little darlings in the school system? :D

patriot45

04-28-2009, 12:42 PM

"What's amazing, too, is how hypocritical it is for Congress to make this decision. The Heritage Foundation's report also conveys that 44 percent of current United States senators and 36 percent of current members of the U.S. House of Representatives have "at one time sent their children to private schools." While the foundation found that 11 percent of American students attend private schools, 20 percent of the members of the 111th Congress attended private high schools. And they want to remove the voucher option for private school education?"

And they likely pay for those prep schools, as my parents did, out of their own pockets. Not from vouchers paid for by taxpayers. I simply don't understand why THIS form of welfare is fine with conservatives, except that it is a slap to public schools, and that's enough reason. :rolleyes:

Well I think if you breakdown the cost per child to send to government indoctrination school compared to the cost of say a charter school, it would be money wisely spent. Government can not run anything well and it especially cannot handle competition.

linda22003

04-28-2009, 12:47 PM

I think the conservative answer would be that they are effectively being taxed twice (by choice, of course) -- first in local school taxes and second in private school fees -- and, therefore, the voucher represents a type of rebate for a service not used. The argument falls down in two places. First, it's a choice, not a requirement, to send children to private schools and conservatives are normally not particularly tolerant of ameliorating the effects of a choice. Second, where's the rebate for those of us who don't have (nor ever had) any screaming br...uh, little darlings in the school system? :D

Exactly. I never had kids, but I pay a pretty penny in property taxes to Fairfax County Schools. In return, I suppose, they help my property value, since they are considered to be good.

Really, people, if you don't like "gubmint" schools, don't use them, but don't expect me to provide ANOTHER option when I already provide one.

noonwitch

04-28-2009, 12:49 PM

All I can say about Charter Schools is that in Detroit, lots of parents are taking advantage of them. They are safer than the average Detroit high school, but not any better or safer than the magnet schools like Cass Tech or Renaissance High Schools. Kids do score higher on assessments than in the average public schools (not counting the magnet schools, which kids have to qualify by gpa and test scores to be admitted), but the charter schools can kick kids out who don't achieve. Public schools can't do that. Also, public schools are required to provide special education services and charter schools are not.

Gingersnap

04-28-2009, 01:01 PM

I don't have kids and I want vouchers - I want them a lot. Even though I don't have children myself, I pay for the education of other people's children. That education is becoming increasingly problematic where I live. Kids can't read, write, or speak English, they know 8 ways to divide whole numbers but can't actually employ any technique successfully, and they have no skills that will come in handy in the "do you want fries with that" job market.

When minimally involved parents suck their kids out of the public school system and into schools with higher standards using vouchers, the public schools will eventually have to address their failings in academics and social reform. Right now, a lot of horrible schools get by on the backs of a handful of normal students and teachers. This has to end.

I want kids to graduate from high school with a basic functional education. Those who aren't college material (and that's most of them) need to have the skills to get entry-level jobs so they can stay off welfare (something else I pay for) and so they stay away from prison (another tax bill).

Lager

04-28-2009, 02:56 PM

Really, people, if you don't like "gubmint" schools, don't use them, but don't expect me to provide ANOTHER option when I already provide one.

But there's also another option of tax credits. For example, if the government allowed an individual to keep more of their own money to subsidize a private school tuition, it really doesn't affect you, does it?

linda22003

04-28-2009, 03:05 PM

But there's also another option of tax credits. For example, if the government allowed an individual to keep more of their own money to subsidize a private school tuition, it really doesn't affect you, does it?

Overall tax cuts are different. If people keep more of their own money in their pockets, I don't care what they do with it.

Lager

04-28-2009, 03:16 PM

The government gives tax credits to individuals to subsidize what it thinks is good for overall society. So let's say someone gets a tax credit for buying a hybrid car, of for installing solar panels. Everyone's okay with that, right? Well, public schools in some areas of our country are in really bad shape. Unfortunately there aren't as many options for parents when it comes to education, as there are for reducing their carbon footprint.

AlmostThere

04-28-2009, 03:33 PM

If I didn't have any children (which I do) and if I lived in an area with substandard public schools( which I don't), I'd definitely want a voucher system for parents with kids. Lousy education = crime + poverty.
Crime and poverty cost society far more than the dollars spent on vouchers. It's a win-win for society and the kids.

Rebel Yell

04-28-2009, 04:22 PM

Really, people, if you don't like "gubmint" schools, don't use them, but don't expect me to provide ANOTHER option when I already provide one.

Even if it cost less money to send them to the better school. As long as it doesn't cost the taxpayer any more money than he/she is already paying, I don't see the problem with it. The majority of people against the voucher program are people who have their kids in private school already. They don't want "those kids" in the same school as their little darlings. If the program cost more for the private schools than the public, I would agree with you 100%, though.

linda22003

04-28-2009, 06:05 PM

The majority of people against the voucher program are people who have their kids in private school already. They don't want "those kids" in the same school as their little darlings. If the program cost more for the private schools than the public, I would agree with you 100%, though.

I don't think that would have been an issue with my old school; it cost considerably more. This is more the type of school the congressmen and senators send their kids to. We had scholarships provided BY the school for some kids. Here's what my school costs now, according to the website (for grades 6-8, and 9-12).

Boarding Day Fees Total
(tuition and fees)
Tuition Middle School (6-8) (day) $37,031
Upper School (9-12) (day) $37,113
Upper School Boarder $49,224
Upper School International $49,900

megimoo

04-28-2009, 07:42 PM

If you live in a small town whether you have children in school or not take the time to do a little research on just how much money the schools take from the tax base and you may be surprised.

Find out just who the president of the teachers unions are ,there may be more than one,and build a file on them .New teachers are forced by union contract to either join the union or pay dues to the unions whether they join or not .

Most Cities or towns be they run by open town meetings,town manager,or mayor are under assault by their own school systems.The teachers unions are overwhelmingly liberal Democrat and demand and are allowed time off with pay to campaign for their favorite candidate who by the way is the one who promises them the most of the town/city budget.

They are dead set against home schooling or state funding of any competition to their closed shop .Whenever they demand more funding it's always 'for the children ' but the first payouts are always an large increase in the teachers salary's ! Spend some time as I did and investigate their salary bases and the mandated retirement fundings .It will take your breath away !

As you would expect the teachers unions are most powerful in the New York State System and Los Angeles Unified school system .They are supported by at the Federal Level by the National Education Association and are mandating Federal Involvement and support dollars in the states education systems.

The NEA is in essence the largest Union In the United States surpassing even the Teamsters in national political power.The NEA contributes heavily to the re-election campaigns of certain key Liberal Democrat campaigns and was heavily involved with financial support from union dues and special offerings essentially extorted from the local union member dues liberal or conservative for Obama this last cycle .

They form alliances within state government and support those elected officials who will sponsor bills for state mandated retirement pay for teachers often with the same retirement plan as the elected officials with the city's or towns paying the premiums .They have instituted, with the votes of the friendly state official who they by now own lock,stock and barrel a system of tenure that guarantees that the older teachers and administrator's will never lose their jobs.

A small town I lived in had a problem with the cost of the school system.As a percentage of the tax base it was approaching sixty to seventy percent of the towns tax income and the town was forced to lay off about ten percent of the newest teachers .The unions ,there were two of them ,went to the state and the state forced the town move moneys from the highway fund to the schools and the school committee demanded the town rehire those lay ed off .

The school committee's are supposed to represent the towns in any negotiations with the unions where in reality those elected to the school committee are all retired or working teachers .There is nothing in town government bylaws to prevent them working for the town and being on the school committee at the same time .

The teachers unions and the school committee's have gained so much power that they now demand and receive a large percentage of the towns tax dollars in advance even before the funds can be voted by town meeting to be controlled by the schools under their own financial system with no oversite or vote by the town .

The original Colonial Town government was by town meeting with a moderator and a board of selectman ,They were originally designed to be temporary positions filled by farmers and townspeople elected by their peers to serve for a year without pay and most complained about their time away from their farms or livelyhood.

Town meeting was called by the moderator whenever there was an issue that would immediately effect the town and needed consenses from the townspeople. One of the most famous was the call to arms from Washington at the start of the revolutionary war where young men were called by town warrent and sent to Boston.

Over the years town government has evolved into a political steeping stone to higher office in state government .There is fierce competition for selectmans seats and the selectmen have become a major power in the town .Town meeting members are are elected to serve by precinct and have of late been filled by town employees able to vote on their own pay packages and benefits.The system has been totally corrupted and was headed for financial disaster !